Doug Weldon

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm John's story. Jack Jack and Greg: Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on. Best, Doug Weldon

i think i have read where they get over 325,ooo visitors a year, take say just $5.00 a head,for an even figure, that is a tremendous amount of income, :blink:if that is not more than enough to run the busness with a healthy profit left over, then someone is highly lacking in economic skills, and then there is also plus the profit made on everything they sell so why the price on every copy of photo that is wanted or needed for research from the tsbd...that is posted on the web...??? that's is the complaint, not a gripe a ruddy very old complaint, trouble is with the so called tsbd museum it has become all about money and control..which only breeds more greed...for more, more , more, are you now going to start charging for yours,?or for any information you or one can supply like docs . news paper clipingss, gifs, video clips etc..?? i doubt it very much, and such, i'm not and i do not see any others doing so...but greed breeds more greed, more,control, more .avarice..and that is what i see within the TSBD MUSEUM, and there have been no improvements when it comes to such, unless one kisses butt or grovels then perhaps one may receive such copies free, hmmmmmm well it's a thought.and it has happened...but do not try to do so if you have a different opinion and not agree with gary or the standard tsbds pro the w/c is right stand......imo... Bernice: The 6th Floor is not $5 a person. Adults are charged $13.50, seniors and children 6-18 $12.50 and the large groups of children 5 and under are free. I am certain that parking is extra. Doug Weldon

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field? Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below]. Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned. David: I agree with everything you wrote here. If it is Lawton, and it could be, then I don't believe it is an issue. If it is Rybka, I agree that it may be more significant, but it also may not be. Nobody here knows why he was flailing his arms. My question would be why did the authors find it necessary to make an effort to deny it was Rybka. I hope you agree, though it may be much ado about nothing, that it would be useful to identify who it was. Best, Doug Weldon

Gary Mack has supplied a copy of the Tom Dillard photograph in question, and has also added the picture to the Sixth Floor Museum website. Thank you, Gary. As it turns out, I had seen that Dillard photo previously. It's in Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History". It's printed, in a cropped format, on the next-to-last page of Vince's second of two photo sections in the book. The photo is linked below, along with Gary's latest e-mail to me regarding this Rybka/Lawton subject: Subject: RE: Gerald Blaine book... Date: 11/17/2010 4:29:17 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein -------------------------- Dave, The photo is now on the Museum’s website: TOM DILLARD LOVE FIELD PHOTO Be sure to use the Expand View slider bar to zoom in on the three agents….you can even see the Secret Service lapel button on Lawton! Gary David: I am puzzled. This picture does not seem to show anything to me. Do you have pictures of Lawton and Rybka from 1963? The man shrugging seems to be the youngest man there. I do not know if it was Lawton or Rybka but Gary's "logic" is not convincing. I think if we had pictures it could easily be resolved . Obviously, Blaine must have thought this was an important point to refute though most people reading the book will have no idea why any time was spent on this. The book uses made-up conversations which obviously could not have been recalled., i.e. analogous to" my wife asked me what I wanted for dinner. I said ribs and she replied why don't you try the chicken." Do you think all or even any of the numerous quoted conversations in the book were real? How did they get the telephone conversations of the wives about mundane things if the agents weren't there? It also gives the impression that all of the Kennedy detail was fine with Kennedy. See the documentary "Dangerous World' in which four of Kennedy's detail spoke up against Kennedy and seemed to be disgusted that he was engaging in immoral activity, drug use, amphetimines from Dr Jacobsen etc. at a time when critical decisions were having to be made for the country. They appeared very upset that they had to be a part of it. After the documentary aired I was informed that a hush or silence order was placed on the Secret service current and past not to speak about Kennedy. Interestingly, not one of these four agents were named in this current book. Peter Jennings, who narrated the show "Dangerous World", implied that there were other agents who could have come forward. Allegedly, when agents were assigned to Kennedy they were warned that they might see some very unexpected things. Remember, these agents were very conservative, anticommunist, and very proud to have achieved their status. I do see, whether rightly or wrongly, that agents could have been compromised if they believed it was their patriotic duty not to allow the presidency to deteriorate in what indeed was a dangerous world in 1963. Again, the Rybka-Lawton controversy can easily be resolved.Oddly, there are no pictures of Rybka in the book and only a very tiny picture of Lawton in Tampa and I am not sure which one of two people he is. The man in the deep crouch is obviously not the man shrugging at Love Field. Since they wanted to resolve the controversy why did they not show a still of Lawton shrugging at Love Field. The book simply whitewashes many things,i.e. "It was a common misconception that the president's limousine was bulletproof. In fact, the car had been DESIGNED MOSTLY FOR POLITICAL SHOW AND EXPOSURE. THE SECRET SERVICE WORKING AGENTS HAD VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THE CAR"S FEATURES (emphasis added.)p 79 Nothing could be further from the truth. Though not bulletproof it was highly designed with bullet and even being bomb resistent. I do not believe that a bullet could have pierced the body of the limousine though the glass was not bullet-proof. The limo took many months to design and the secret service was the MAJOR player in its design. I spent many hours talking and communicating with the late Willard Hess who modified the limo. They tried to anticipate every circumstance that the President might confront. The Secret Service was practically always there in Cinncinati, Ohio, where the Hess and Eisenhardt Company was located and even the most minor modifications were done onlywith the approval of the Secret Service. It was a coordinated effort with the Secret Service, the Ford Motor Company, and Hess and Eisenhardt. There are still things about that vehicle which are classified Top Secret and those involved had to take an oath not to reveal them. Once again, the mainstream media is focusing tremendous attention on this book. I saw Mike Barnacle on MSNBC rave about the book and Barnacle expressed his disgust over those who have written conspiracy books and made fortunes! Can you name one author alleging a conspiracy who has made a fortune? Obviously, it is a totally different story with Posner and Buglious and these people writing this book will do okay. This is so similar to a number of years ago when the lead story on television was "Humes breaks his silence. Three shots from the rear..." The same thing is happening here as the news proclaims "The Secret Service breaks its silence as to what really happened to Kennedy in Dallas." I have been informed there is going to be a television show Monday about it. Oh Boy. What about the agents who broke their silence on the ABC documentary "Dangerous World" in the 1990's? Oddly, I did not see one newscast about the Secret Service breaking their silence then. Again, simply provide pictures of Lawton and Rybka and there is no controversy. Doug Weldon

Hello Doug, There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called nebula in the Altgens #6 hole claim is made up of the black woman's hand which is holding a rolled up newspaper. I have studied this extensively and I am 100% certain of my conclusion. Now about the White House Garage photos .... What was said above is accurate. I took a hi-resolution scan of a good print of Altgens #7 and cropped out the damage seen on the windshield. I reversed it and tested it against the chip in the glass in the White House garage photos ... namely the best close up that was taken. One of the things that jumped out at me is that Altgens #7 shows a large amount of frost around the defect in the windshield. This frost appearance is caused by the many fine cracks in the glass that are being illuminated by direct sunlight hitting them. I think we all know what I am talking about here. I couldn't even guess at all the fine cracks that make up the frosty appearance seen in Altgen's #7. The White House Garage photo that I concentrated on was the good clear close up of the chip. The windshield surrounding the border of that chip appears pristine ... no fine cracks are discernible at all. I personally do not see how this can be dismissed. The defect in the glass in the White House garage photo is in the right location, but if my memory is correct .... the large cracks extending outward did not match between Altgens #7 and the White House garage photos in my opinion for what that's worth. However, until proven otherwise, the frosting of the glass in Altgens #7 that I have mentioned tells me the two windshields in question are not the same. Bill Miller Bill: Thanks for confirming your position. As you are aware I disagree about Altgen's 6 but I understand people are seeing many things, a hand, a dress, a purse, a hole, etc. If you watch my presentation I did in Minnesota (as can be seen on you-tube) you can see that there were several versions of that area of the photo. I believe you noted that one newspaper had distorted the photograph. My question would be WHY? As to Altgen's 7 and the WH Garage photo which was allegedly made that night during the FBI exam my questions would be the standard ones: Who? When? Where? Why? As you know , one of the agents (Taylor, Jr.) who rode in the vehicle from the AFB to the White House Garage sat in the passenger seat during the drive to the WH Garage and could see the windshield the whole time and later in his report said there was a small hole in the windshield from which it appeared that bullet fragments had been removed. I am not going to rehash the whole discussion but I believe your observation here is extremely interesting, especially with the standard four questions I ask above. Your observations alone have to cause you to ponder this carefully. I hope you don't mind if I use your observations in my writing, with, of course providing credit to you for your personal observation. My sincere thanks, Doug Weldon

I am sure that if you stick around here long enough, there will be THREE OSWALDS, or maybe four. Why stop at two? [Edit: I was present when John Armstrong first presented his "two Oswald" theory in Fredonia, and I have never heard a more sloppy presentation. John Armstrong is a nice man, but he wouldn't know what EVIDENCE is if it jumped up and bit him in the butt! John is not comfortable with public speaking. Please read the book and then form any opinion you wish. Doug Weldon

Dean, your fellow alteration supporters are getting what they deserve in my view. For instance, I had one of them going on years ago about there was no clear image of Sitzman being in the Plaza and yet the woman turns and faces Zapruder's camera just prior to the assassination. That footage is taken at the colonnade with Sitzman talking to her friends - the Hester's. Then there is the interview of Sitzman at the pedestal ,,, pictures of Sitzman near the TSBD ... all showing her in the same clothes as seen on the woman at the pedestal. So why does another poorly researched alteration claim have to be made from all of this ... the answer may be what I just said 'poorly researched'. As far as the Zapruder film being mixed with the alleged 'other film' .... that is impossible and here is why ........................... It has been said that the other film is amazingly sharp ... the Zapruder film is not. The other film would have to be taken from another location than Zapruder's, this means it would be impossible to combine frames from the two films for they would not match when it came to the line of sight ... it would make Zapruder appear to have changed filming locations and that just didn't happen. The other film could not have been shot from the doorway of the shelter or from within the windows on the walls because not only would Sitzman and Zapruder be in the shot (which no one has claimed so far) but the Bezner and Willis photos show a good view of the interior of that shelter and no one can be seen anywhere. Bill Bill: You never responded to this: I do want to be accurate as to your position. Many thanks, Doug Weldon Bill Miller, on 25 March 2010 - 08:42 PM, said: Josiah Thompson, on Feb 16 2010, 01:05 AM, said: First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5? Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo? Josiah Thompson I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake. In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her. When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7. Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true. Bill Miller Bill: Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct? My best, Doug Weldon

Jim: I am reading "Harvey and Lee' now for the second time. There is no possible way that any intelligent and reasonable person could have read the book thoroughly and then trash it. People are not comparing Oswald and Marguerite at diffent times in their life but at the same time. Even as John was writing the book and talking with me there was some evidence that John was more impressed with than I. However, in its totality, I cannot fathom how thouroughly John followed and put the evidence together. It is amazing research. The only small criticism I had was that Armstrong had located John Pic (now deceased) and left a message that he would like to talk with him. Not getting a reply John let it go. I would have been at Pic's door.However, it is part of Armstrong's personality to act as he did. Simply an incredible book. Best, Doug Weldon

David: Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence. Doug Weldon I shouild acknowledge Bernice Moore for finding the recording room. There was a larger room labeled as for "records." That certainly cannot be for files. It is too logical. Well, it is getting late here in Michigan and I am heading to the kitchen to get some sleep. Doug Weldon

David: Let me understand your position. A few posts ago you indicated that you were certain that it was Rybka who was shrugging. Now, because Gary Mack via hearsay was told that it was Lawton, even though Gary was told by someone (Lisa) who was not there in 1963 and not knowing exactly what she was told, you are now absolutely convinced that it was Lawton seen in the film. Do you know what Rybka and Lawton looked like? Well, if Gary said it was so I guess there is no reason to have a forum or to try to determine the truth behind the assassination. I guess we can all pick up our toys and go home. Among many things Gary has told me is that what was labeled as a recording room at the Dallas Police Department in 1963 was not for recordings at all but it was actually a file room. That's logical. Why would anyone call a "file room" a file room? How silly. How does Gary know it was not a recording room? It is because he was in that room a few years ago. I guess that once a room is used for something it can never be used for any other purpose even forty plus years later. It is like Gary saying on one of his programs that a shot from the south knoll area could not have hit Kennedy because the shot would have to go through the windshield. REALLY? I am sure that Gary was never aware that anyone suggested that. Gary has also said that if Oswald was recorded in 1963 it could not have been used UNLESS BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorney AGREED IT COULD BE USED in court. Of course if the statements by Oswald were exculpatory the prosecutor would want the recording to come in and if it was inculpatory a good defense attorney would let the recording be admitted in order to hang his client. I tried to list all of the circumstances that both attorneys would have let such a recording come in to a trial. The one instance I could think of was if Oswald had simply said the sky was blue that day. Whoops! That would be irrelevsnt. There would not be any circumstances so why would anyone in Texas ever make a recording in 1963?Anything mopre meaningful than that which is irrelevant? NO. I have practiced law for over 32 years and have both prosecuted and defended cases. Gary's version of the law would have been unique in that it never has been such in any state ever, even Texas, except as Gary contends, for Oswald's case in 1963. Texas must have been part of a parallel universe that year. Then again, David, as you suggested, what does one expect of the Secret Service, that they would use themselves as human shields to protect the President. How ridiculous. WAIT, they are supposed to do that. David, I sincerely give you a lot more credit than that for your positions and for myself, I am not certain whether it was Rybka or Lawton shrugging at Love Field. However, I am going to need more evidence than Gary Mack being told by someone if it was so. My first question to Lisa, the author, is HOW did they confirm it was Lawton? Did they see the film? I would want to see a picture of Rybka or Lawton. It would be embarassing if a few posts from now if you then became absolutely convinced it was Rybka. Wow. I would not box myself in on such limited evidence. I admire your confidence. Doug Weldon

David: John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back. Doug Weldon I know - sorry if that was poorly worded. I ought to have written: "Emory Roberts is recorded as preventing another agent from approaching the limo 'during the shooting.' In the Nix film, it seems as if Hill is almost at the rear bumper when JFK's head flies back. Why was he allowed off the Queen Mary?" Why do you think Hill is wearing a bulletproof vest? Can we spot it on him during other motorcades? David: I cannot say definitively that Hill was wearing a vest. A friend, who is a DEA agent, and who teaches at Quantico, pointed it out to me. I asked my friend who was a SS agent under Ford what he thought. He would not commit as to whether it was a vest or not. I then asked him how unusual it was for an agent to be wearing a vest in the 1960's or 1970's and his response was that it would be highly unusual. Bernice posted the correct picture and people can judge for themselves but as I have thought about it through the years there remains no doubt in my mind that agents were compromised. Though many researchers are critical and people degrade "The Dark Side of Camelot" I believe it is a very valuable book. Some suspect Sy Hersh as being CIA but I would note that he is the one who came forward with the Cheney Death Squads a couple of years ago. Whether or not Hill had a vest on or not he is not high on my list of being suspicious as being one of the agents who were compromised. I simply cannot point to any evidence that would suggest that he was. Best, Doug Weldon

David: John Ready,not Hill, was the agent who was called back. Doug Weldon

I wish to join in the chorus of those who thank Vince Palamara for his work on this case over very many years. Vince dedicated the best years of his young life to shedding light on a most important question: Why did the Secret Service allow the assassination of JFK to happen? I first heard Vince speak about the Secret Service at the Third Decade conference in Fredonia, in the great state of New York, in the Summer of 1991. I predicted then that Vince's work would be a major factor in solving this case, and I repeat that prediction now, almost 20 years later. Of course Justice cannot now be done, in the strict sense of imprisoning the real perpetrators, but it is never too late for the Truth. At that Fredonia conference everyone was excited about press reports that Oliver Stone was making a major movie about the assassination. Looking back now I say it is a great pity that Stone tried to glorify a self-aggrandizing exploiter like Garrison, instead of waiting a few years to make a movie about Vince. Vince has his faults, I imagine, as do we all, but in my opinion he is a truly great American and a real credit to his Alma Mater, Duquesne University. If this country had not been fxxxed up so badly by the JFK assassination, Vince's book would have been carefully edited and published by a major publishing house, and Vince would already be a household name and an international celebrity. Indeed, if Duquesne University itself had not been fxxxed up by the assassination, Vince would have been the keynote speaker at their 2003 conference. Instead, the keynote speakers were Cyril Wecht, repeating for the umpteenth time that the magic bullet is bullwax, and Wecht's good friend Arlen Specter, repeating for the umpteenth time that the magic bullet is fact. Meanwhile, Vince Palamara sat silenced in the audience. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html Vince tried to become a speaker at the 2003 conference but his proposal was rejected by Wecht. I believe the reason he was given was that it was not a scientific presentation. Vince has made tremendous contributions to the understanding of the assassination. His book should have been published by a major publisher. Doug Weldon

Maybe you had received an answer to your question, but didn't catch it. You can post your image again or link it because I am not interested in wasting lots of time with it. I do know that it was not uncommon for newspapers to airbrush photos so to sharpen them up where ever possible. I would have to see your images again, feel free to post a link to them or repost them again. Bill Bill, The detail in the flag between the red arrows. As I asked previously, if someone has a non-newspaper copy of Altgen's with this detail, I'm all ears. It does not exist in any of the best copies that have been submitted so far. chris Chris: If you watch my presentation in Minnesota (on you-tube) you will see that there were several versions of Altgen's 6. Doug Weldon

David: Why did the SS feel it was necessary to destroy their records on th motorcades just prior to Dallas? The press bus was moved to the back for the Dallas motorcade. It is not simply a question of filming. It is a question of witnessing. Nobody is suggesting that anyone tried to prevent any photos or filming in Dealey Plaza. The buildings were to be checked and there was to be no non law enforcement people on the overpass. Actually, it IS EXACTLY THE DUTY of Secret Service Agents to be HUMAN SHIELDS. Ready was called back as he started to move to the limo after the first shots. Please see my chapter in MIDP how the third person was removed from the front seat and the reason that was given. I believe this created the opportunity for a shot to be fired through the front of the windshield from the south knoll area to hit Kennedy in the front. You are entrenched in your position and I am not going to pretend that any amount of evidence I present is going to persuade you any differently. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. BTW, I also agree that Four Days in November is a great film. Also, if you know my background, you will know that I did not seek nor did I want to find the evidence that I did. I simply cannot ignore it or call so many witnesses mistaken or lying. I wanted to resist the conclusions I was forced to reach. Unless you have sat down with and/or discussed the case with many of the witnesses you cannot understand what happened in Dallas in the same way. History is the myth that people choose to believe. Believe as you will. Best, Doug Weldon

The whole Secret Service topic is total nonsense, mainly because we know (and can prove) that the security for President Kennedy's motorcade on November 22nd, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, was absolutely no different in any substantial way from other pre-11/22/63 motorcades that Mr. Kennedy rode in during his 1,037 days as the 35th U.S. Chief Executive. Vince Palamara is constantly making a huge deal out of the fact that the SS agents did not continuously ride on the back bumpers of JFK's limousine in Dallas (and particularly, of course, in Dealey Plaza). But the SS configuration in Dealey Plaza was no different than many other pre-Nov. 22 parades, as these photos amply demonstrate (and JFK is even STANDING UP in these first two examples--making himself an even bigger target in the limousine--and there's no SS agents riding the back bumpers at all; so much for the crap about the Dallas motorcade being completely different than other JFK caravans): Two more "No Agents On The Bumper" examples: http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFKMotorcade.jpg http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFKMotorcade3.jpg And I can dig up about half-a-dozen other examples of photos showing NO AGENTS AT ALL riding the bumper of JFK's car while Kennedy was riding in his open limousine. So, does Vince Palamara think that the plot was so sophisticated and elaborate so as to have the SS agents avoiding JFK's bumper in many PRE-Nov. 22 motorcades, just to make it SEEM like the security was no different at all in Dallas? Obviously, nobody can believe such a nonsensical thing. Therefore, the "Secret Service Was To Blame" argument goes absolutely nowhere, and proves nothing, just like all other speculative theories introduced by hundreds of conspiracy promoters worldwide since 1963. And, btw, the agent with the flailing arms at Love Field has got to be Henry Rybka, and not Donald Lawton. How can we know? Because of CE2554 and Rybka's OWN SIGNED STATEMENT regarding what he did at Love Field on 11/22/63. He specifically stated that it was HE (not Lawton or any other agent) who was positioned to the right-rear of JFK's limo just as the cars started to roll. So Palamara got that one right, and Gerald Blaine must be incorrect: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0409a.htm And there is, of course, no reason under the sun for the U.S. Secret Service (or anyone else) to want to fake Rybka's signed report that appears above in Warren Commission volume 25. If some conspiracy theorist can come up with a good reason for someone to want to switch around the names of the agents (Rybka and Lawton) on those official Secret Service reports, I'd sure like to hear it. Because it makes no sense to want to fake such peripheral documents and start fiddling with the names of the agents on those reports. Therefore, logically, Henry Rybka is the shrugging agent seen here: http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/RybkaLoveField11-22-63.jpg David: There were many differences in protocol by the Secret Service in Dallas. In MIDP I even name the person from the Protective SWervices Division who was responsible for seeing that storm drains were sealed and windows closed in Dallas. One of the key differences was placing the press bus way back of the motorcade. As you can see in your top picture the press bus is very close to Kennedy's limo. Also note a third person in the front seat. Blaine's book emphasizes that it was Lawton, not Rybka, shrugging. In doing so he is able to innocently explain Rybka's puzzlement while, in fact, there appears to be much more to it. John Tunheim said that the Secret Service was the least cooperative of any agency the AARB dealt with. They continued to destroy records as they were being ordered to turn them over to the AARB. The records of the previous motorcades in the weeks before the assassination were supposedly destroyed. After the publication of "The Dark Side of Camelot" agents and former agents were given a hush order. To suggest that all of the SS agents were enamored with Kennedy is simply an effort to create a whitewash. I have friends who have been or who were part of the SS, FBI, and DEA. I have interviewed many of the officers in the motorcade in Dallas. They either maintain silence or are very critical of the security in Dallas. Best, Doug Weldon

Hello Greg, I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film. Bill This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything. However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer. Again, there is remarkable consistency from the the witnesses I find most credible claiming to have seen another film: the limo took a wide turn onto Elm Street ( I am most suspicious of the Z film because of this because I don't believe Zapruder ever said he stopped filming) and that the limo STOPPED. It is interesting that "The Kennedy Detail" indicates that the film was constantly used as a training film. It would be so interesting to know what was being shown. I have a friend who was a SS agent under Ford who knew many of the Kennedy agents but he is reluctant to say anything. I also believe that the SS agents and former agents were ordered not to talk after the publication of "The Dark Side of Camelot." I have to agree with Monk that whatever people saw it is impossible to say if anyone saw an unedited version. Doug Weldon

I hope you have researched his field of view and angle to the limo so to have tested his perception of the event. Some folks saw the parade stop for a few seconds and possibly felt the limo did as well. Others looking at a limo heading away from them and slowing to a near stop may look to be stopped for a brief moment. White House reporter Merriman Smith said that from his angle to the President's car that while the follow-up cars in the parade did come to a halt for a few seconds .... the President's car only faltered. So what I am saying is that a witness can be truthful in saying what they believe they saw, I only advise being thorough in considering whether what they saw was real or not. Bill Bill: Again, your reply is legitimate and your points are, of course, well taken. You are very thorough and reasonable and I respect that. I have not researched exactly where he was when he "saw" the limo stop.. I did not solicit the comment but he offered it. He was looking at the limo. Obviously the Z film shows nothing like a stop. He sounded very puzzled why it did not. I believe his comment (I will need to listen to it again) was to the effect "I could swear that it stopped." When evidence is corroborative and cumulative it carries more weight. Yes, a witness can be mistaken. However, it becomes noteworthy if sixty witnesses describe the same thing. Dealey Plaza, can be an enigma as to sounds and echoes. I have seen nothing in Dealey Plaza that lends itself to creating optical illusions. When the limo turned onto Elm two officers saw the ground and dust come up in the plaza across from the depository, convincing them that it was from a shot. They shared this with WC investigators and both were told they could not have seen that. The one officer diagrammed for me exactly where it hit. Best, Doug Weldon

DellaRosa's site years ago had a list of people who claimed to have seen the 'other film'. I pointed out that some of those witnesses were saying they saw things that were not part of other peoples description. For instance, one person had said that the 'other film' he saw had shown the President and Connally being shot as the car was making the turn onto Elm Street .... other accounting's didn't mention this. So rightfully so, I responded that there seems to be various versions of this so-called 'other film'. That if this so-called 'other film' had actually been witnessed by 'x' number of people, then each version should show the same sequences of events unfolding. That any difference in their descriptions implies that some of the witnesses are merely jumping on the 'I saw the other film' wagon and didn't see it or they all were telling the truth, but merely describing different films. Bill Bill: Fair enough and thank you for the reply. I am not familiar with that list of people (how many?). The consistent factors that stand out from those whom I am aware saw another film are that they saw the limo taking a very wide turn on Elm Street(almost hitting the curb by the depository) and that the limo stopped. It does not surprise me that there would be those who would jump on the wagon. Again, thanks. Doug Weldon

Vince: The book has Donald Lawton being waved off at Love Field, not Henry Rybka. Which is correct? Many thanks. Doug Weldon

Jack: The fact remains there is NO evidence; ... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted or ever met Oswald ... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted with ANY major player in the assassination ... though Judyth appears to have been a good high school student that she was a "brilliant" student who as a teenager was one of the top cancer researchers in the United States and the world. ... that any of the events that may have been true included Judyth being involved Absent Judyth inserting herself Forrest Gump style into events, there is no serious corroboration for anything that would suggest her presence, she refuses to entertain any serious questioning by people such as myself and Greg Burnham, and any physical evidence that she has claimed to have, i.e., Oswald's writing on an Aristotle book, suddenly mysteriously "lost" or she refuses to allow such evidence to be examined by experts. The tragedy is that such a con is not harmless. It makes a mockery of the assassination, the memory of Oswald, Marina, and his daughters. What may be most disturbing of all is that Judyth may have convinced herself this was true and as information is contradicted it is simple to omit accounts or conform to the best known facts. It is interesting historical fiction. Doug Weldon ... that a

What is your point? Many thanks, Doug Weldon

Thank you for your response. This makes this matter, as it relates to the fatal shot, unresolved. The Kill Shot did not come from the right side, or the so called "Grassy Knoll" area or the fence. No Badgeman, Files , nor does any testimony to that effect matter. The smoke seen in the area seems to have been a diversion, and actors were employed, just like the so called "Three Tramps." This thing keeps getting worse and worse. If that were possible. Peter: I hope that I was clear. Since this thread is about a shot through the windshield I was only confirming that the shot through the windshield could not have come from the right side. I am not dismissing the fatal shot or other shots coming from the right side. Best, Doug Weldon

Robert: If you do not believe everything Judyth says, that must mean there are things that she says that you do not believe, therefore she is not telling the truth about some things she says. How do you discern what to believe and not to believe? Is it not suspicious to you that she has contradicted herself on so many points and that she has refused to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham or such things as that she claims to have LHO's writing on abook but refuses to have it analyzed? It goes on and on. I am curious. How do you differentiate between what she is telling the truth about and what she is lying about? Normally, if a person is lying about something it is sufficient grounds to discount their entire story. Do you agree? Best, Doug Weldon

I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake. In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her. When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7. Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true. Bill Miller Bill: Though I do not wish to reengage this thread. To Peter McGuire: No, the shot could not have come from the right side. To Bill Miller: I believe your post was clear but I would like everyone to understand what you are stating. You are stating that the damage seen in the windshield in Altgen's 7 is NOT the same as the damage seen in the windshield in the WH Garage photos? Correct? Therefore, you are stating that the windshield seen in Altgen's 7 was changed to another damaged windshield before or at the time the limousine arrived at the WH Garage? Correct? My best, Doug Weldon